I believe this page can be supported by a general reference. There is nothing controversial or likely to be contested here. Putting the same inline citation at the end of every paragraph is pointless as you are basically saying that every paragraph is supported by the source. A general reference does the same thing. An inline cite would only be required if there are specific statements that require individual support from different sources. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference#General_reference. SilentC (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the same inline citation at the end of every paragraph is useful: as it is basically saying that every paragraph is supported by the source, i.e., it is not a wikipedian's fantasy or opinion. I see only too often articles with "general reference" slapped with the tag "citations missing". And I don't want to give 'bot-riding nitpickers a chance to increase their edit count. Timurite (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Timurite (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not read any of Paul Seller's blogs or watch his plane related videos?! :)
e.g. https://paulsellers.com/2014/02/planes-speak/
Paul - a 50 year+ apprentice trained mastercraftsman cabinetmaker - often reiterates than traditional planes do not chatter when set-up correctly
(e.g. see above link) - this is a myth propogated, one might think, by modern plane and iron-makers and/or their resellers/advocates.
Paul also often comments that thin-blades (irons) perform as well as thicker irons and are much quicker and easier to sharpen.
The frog is not set to adjust the cut, as the article states. It's set to allow chips to exit the plane. In the case of a good plane, you would have a continuous tape of wood exiting, but the term "chip" is used anyway, as in chip breaker. If you have chips, you have a problem.Longinus876 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
